Chapter III: A Contrast. Armour of Count Sigismond of Tirol, (3)

The jack or canvas coat of Sir John Willoughby, _temp._ Elizabeth, now at Woolaton Hall, is formed of stout canvas inside and out stuffed with two layers of tow with horn discs in between. The whole is kept together by a series of lacings which appear on the outside as lines and triangles of the same kind as those shown on Fig. 25. It is composed of six panels, two for the breast, two for the back, and two small ones for the shoulders. A portrait of Willoughby in the Painted Gallery at Greenwich shows such a jack with red cords. The jack was generally lined with metal plates and examples of this may be seen in the Tower (III, 335, 336). These are also made up of six panels and weigh about 17 lb. each. They are composed of about 1164 metal plates[72] (Fig. 25). In the Shuttleworth accounts published by the Chetham Society are to be found entries of 9¼ yards of linen to make a “steel coat,” a pound of slape or pitch, two dozen points or laces for two coats, and 1650 steel plates. The cost of the coat, inclusive of making, would come to about £1. A cap, constructed in the same manner of small plates, is shown in the Burges Collection at the British Museum and is figured in the _Guide to the Mediæval Room_ on page 62.

A. Outside.
B. Plates with cover and cords removed.]

The brigandine was sometimes reinforced with large placcates of steel, one on each breast, riveted to the fabric which composed the whole defence. An example of this nature exists in the Waffensammlung at Vienna, and there are also several of these reinforcing plates, the brigandines of which have perished, in the Ethnological Museum at Athens (Fig. 26). These latter were found in the castle of Chalcis, which was taken by the Turks from the Venetians in 1470, so they can be dated with accuracy.[73] On one of the plates is a mark which strongly resembles the mark of Antonio Missaglia (see Plates XI, XVI). These brigandines with solid breast-pieces are described in Appendix D, page 177. Both these plates and the example at Vienna are fitted with lance-rests which seem to be eminently unpractical, as the garment is more or less pliant and would not be of much use in sustaining the weight of a lance. The most curious of these reinforcing plates is to be found in the picture of S. Victor by Van der Goes, _circ._ 1450, which is now in the Municipal Gallery at Glasgow. Here the uppermost part of the torse is protected by strong plates of steel, but the abdomen is only covered by the brigandine (Fig. 27). As an example of this fashion of armour and as a most careful representation of detail this picture is as valuable as it is unique. Splinted armour is practically the brigandine without a covering, but made usually of stronger plates or lames. The fact that the body was covered by a series of small plates ensured greater freedom and ease in movement than was possible with solid breast and back plates. The monument in Ash Church and the statue of S. George at Prague are good examples of the splinted armour of the fourteenth century (Figs. 28, 29).

That the skill of the sixteenth-century armourer surpassed that of the present-day craftsman is evident after careful examination of some of the triple-combed Burgonets and Morions of the middle of the century. They are often found forged in one piece with no sign of join or welding, and what is more remarkable still, there is but little difference in the thickness of the metal all over the piece. Now, when a smith hollows out a plate of metal into a bowl-like form, the edges are generally thicker than the inside of the bowl; but in many of these head-pieces the metal is almost of equal thickness all over, a _tour de force_ which few metal-workers to-day could imitate.[74] This thinning of the metal was utilized to a great extent in the different portions of the suit which were not exposed to attack. As will be found in the chapter on “Proof,” the back-plates were generally thinner than the breasts. In jousting-helms the top of the skull, which, from the position of the rider when jousting, was most exposed to the lance, was generally much thicker than the back of the helm, where there was no chance of attack.

Again, the left side of both jousting and war harness is frequently thicker than the right, for it was here that the attack of both lance and sword was directed. Up to the middle of the fifteenth century the shield, hung on the left arm, was used as an extra protection for this the more vulnerable side of the man-at-arms, but it seriously interfered with the management of the horse. By the sixteenth century it was discarded and the armour itself made stronger on the left side both by increased thickness and also by reinforcing pieces such as the Grandgarde, the Passgarde, and the Manteau d’armes.

Perhaps the most ingenious contrivance used in making the suit of armour is the sliding rivet (Fig. 30). This contrivance has come to be called the “Almain rivet” in modern catalogues in a sense never found in contemporary documents. In these documents the “Almain rivet” is a light half-suit of German origin, made up of breast, back, and tassets, with sometimes arm-pieces. The word “rivet” was employed in the sixteenth century for a suit of armour, for Hall uses the word frequently in his Chronicles. This word is therefore more probably derived from the same root as the French _revêtir_, rather than from the rivets which were used in the making of the suit. Up to the sixteenth century the rivet as we know it to-day is always called an “arming-nail,” and it is only in the middle of the sixteenth century that we find the word rivet used as part of the armourer’s stock-in-trade. These light suits were put together with sliding rivets, which have at the present day received the name originally given to the whole suit. The head of the rivet is burred over and fixed in the upper plate, but the lower plate is slotted for about three-quarters of an inch, so that it will play up and down on the shank of the rivet and give more freedom of action than the fixed rivet; at the same time it will not allow the two plates to slide so far apart as will uncover the limb or body of the wearer. These sliding rivets were used to join the upper and lower portions of the breastplate which was in fashion in the last years of the fifteenth century, so as to allow a certain amount of movement for the torse backwards and forwards. They were also employed to join the taces, which needed a certain amount of play when mounting a horse or when sitting. When the “lobster-tail” cuisse superseded the taces and tassets in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries they were used instead of the fixed rivets for joining the lames of the cuisse.

ARMET OF SIR HENRY LEE, BY JACOB TOPF, 1530-1597]

The most ingenious arrangement of sliding rivets, however, is to be found on the brassards of the late fifteenth to the seventeenth century. As has been noticed on page 6, the armourer had to consider in this case both the defensive needs of his patron and also the necessity for using his arm as conveniently as was consistent with safety.

Now the only actions needed for the right arm are those of holding the lance in rest and of striking with the sword. The arm-defence therefore had to be so constructed that the arm could be bent for the former and raised for the latter. To do this the lames of the rerebrace are joined with sliding rivets at the hinder corners, but at the front corners they are joined with a strap fastened vertically to the top plate of the brassart and riveted, when extended straight, to each lame.

This allows play for the lames in the two above-mentioned positions, but when the arm is dropped, after the blow has been delivered, the lames automatically close one over the other and completely protect the arm and allow no backward movement.

The same arrangement is found on the laminated cuisses and tassets, in which the inner edges of the lames are joined by a strap and the outer by sliding rivets. This combination of sliding rivet and strap is shown on Fig. 7 and on Plate IX.

Another ingenious arrangement on the brassard is the turned-over edge or the embossed rim fitting in a collar, both of which allow the lower part of the rerebrace to turn horizontally to adapt it to the outward action of the hand and arm. In most suits the bossings of the rims are outside, but on the “Engraved Suit” (II, 5) in the Tower they are inside. The former gives a smooth surface to the wearer’s arm and the latter presents a smooth surface to the opposing weapon (Fig. 31).

1. “Engraved Suit,” Tower, II, 5, 1514.
2. Tower, II, 6, 1540.
3. Tower, II, 7, 1570.
4. Wallace Collection, 340.]

A similar rim and collar are found on close helmets and gorgets of the sixteenth century (Plate XIII). Meyrick,[75] misreading Fauchet’s[76] reference to the burgonet, considered this helmet with a lower edge fitting into the gorget to be the burgonet, but he brought no real evidence to support his assertion. Although the helmet and gorget fitted one over the other and therefore surmounted one of the chief dangers in war or joust, when the lance might penetrate the space between these two portions of the suit, it will be seen on examination of any suit of this kind that from the oblique position of the gorget the embossed rim of the helmet could not possibly turn in the hollowed rim of the gorget, so that it can only be considered as a defensive improvement which in no way added to the convenience in use, if anything it rather hampered the wearer, as he could only turn his head inside the helmet and that to no great extent. In some late suits a pin fixed at the back of the gorget comes through a hole in the lower edge of the helmet and _prevents_ any possible movement.

It is almost superfluous to mention the straps which join the various portions of the suit. These are always placed, where possible, in positions where they are protected from injury; as, for example, on the jambs they are on the inside of the leg, next to the horse when the wearer is mounted, and the hinge of the jamb being of metal is on the outside. In some cases the end of the strap after being buckled fits into a “shoe” bossed out of the armour plate (Fig. 33).

It is practically impossible to notice the various forms of turning or locking pins used for joining parts of a suit. The general principle is that of a turning rivet with a flat, fan, or hook shaped head which, fitting into an oblong slot in the upper plate, can be turned at right angles to hold the two plates together. There are many varieties of this fastening, based upon the same principle, but those existing at the present day are often modern restorations. In suits for the joust or tourney these adjustable fastenings could not always be depended upon, and the great helm, the manteau d’armes, and the passgarde were often screwed on to the suit with square or polygonal headed bolts tightened with a spanner.

The gauntlet was sometimes capable of being locked, for the unfingered flap which covered the fingers was prolonged so as to reach the wrist, where it fastened over a pin. This was used in foot jousts to prevent the weapon from being struck out of the hand and is sometimes called the “forbidden gauntlet,” an absurd term when we consider that many fine suits are provided with this appliance, which would not be the case if its use were not allowed (Fig. 32, also Plate XXII).

A few of the fastenings used to hold the different parts of the suit together are shown on Fig. 33. The hook (No. 1) is found on the armets made by Topf (page 21 and Plate XIII). Here the hook A is shown in position fastening the visor over a button D. When it is necessary to open the visor a leather thong which was attached at C is pulled and at the same time the button F is pressed. This depresses a spring riveted to the visor at G and projecting with a small tongue at E. The depression of E allows the hook to be moved back and the visor to be raised. When the hook is moved forward to close the visor the tongue E springs up and locks the whole firmly. No. 2 of the same figure is another contrivance for locking plates together, and is found on 695, Wallace Collection, and elsewhere. C C C is the section of the armour plate. The hook is pivoted at C and is fitted with a spring at D. When the leather lace at A is pulled the tongue of the hook B is brought back flush with the plate C and allows the visor to be raised. When the visor is closed the hook springs back to its position and locks the plates together. No. 3 is a catch of the same kind, but is worked by a spring of the same kind as that which locks the “Topf” hook. The pressing of the button A sets back the hook B, which is riveted to the plate at D. No. 4 is a “spring pin,” or “federzapfen” as they are called in German and “auberon” in French. The small flange let into the pin is kept pressed outwards by a spring and is pressed back to slip the pauldron, in which is a hole cut for the purpose, over the pin. No. 5 shows a series of turning pins which are riveted to the lower plate in taces, cuisses, tassets, etc., but can be turned at will. The upper plates that are fastened by these pins are pierced with narrow oblong slits through which the flat head of the pin can be passed; a turn at right angles locks the two plates closely. No. 6 is an ingenious contrivance found on 1086, Wallace Collection. The armour plate is bossed upwards to form a covering for the free end of the strap when buckled, to prevent the chance of this loose piece of leather being cut off or of hindering the wearer in any way.

On Fig. 34 is shown the support for the jousting-sallad, without which it was always liable to be struck off. It is screwed with wing nuts to the crest of the sallad and to the back of the cuirass. The reinforcing piece for face and breast of the same nature as the mentonnière and grand-guard. These various methods of fastening plates together can be only studied to advantage by careful examination of actual suits, and even here there is always the chance that they may be modern restorations. Perhaps the most elaborately contrived suit in existence is that made for Henry VIII for fighting on foot in the lists (Tower, II, 28). This covers the wearer completely with lames back and front, and allows as much movement as is possible in a suit weighing 93 lb. (Plate VIII). It is composed of 235 separate pieces, all of different form. There are similar suits in the Musée d’Artillerie, Paris (G, 178, 179) of a more ornate character. The cuisse of one of these suits is shown on Plate XI and the inside of the cuisse of the Tower suit on Plate IX. While dealing with this question of the pieces that compose a suit, it should be noted that the “Leicester” suit in the Tower (II, 10) is made up of 194 pieces, and a suit at Madrid (A, 164, the “Muhlberg” suit of Charles V) requires one mounted and six unmounted figures to show it off completely.

PARADE ARMOUR

1. FOR KING SEBASTIAN OF PORTUGAL, BY ANTON PEFFENHAUSER, 1525-1603
2. FOR CHARLES V, BY BARTOLOMEO CAMPI, 1546]

THE MAKING OF ARMOUR IN ENGLAND, FROM CONTEMPORARY DOCUMENTS

1321. Edward II sends David le Hope, armour-smith, to Paris to
learn the method of making sword-blades for battle.

1322. Regulations concerning the covering of helmets with fabric
and the selling of old and broken helmets. _Arm. Co., Lond._ (see
Appendix A).

1347. Regulations of the Heaumers’ Co. _City of London Letter
Book, F, fol. cxlii_ (see Appendix B).

1355. The Mayor and Sheriffs of London ordered to appraise the
armour in the armourers’ shops. _Rymer, III, v_, 817.

1365. The armourers of London are in full work, but the results
are not satisfactory. The King (Edward III) insists on proof or
trade marks. “Certa signa sua super omnibus operationibus suis
ponant.” _Rymer, III_, 772.

1386. Armourers are forbidden to increase the prices of their
wares. _Rymer, III_, 546.

1408. Oct. 12. Petition to the Mayor and Aldermen of London
against foreign importers who use marks similar to English marks,
and praying to keep the price fixed and regulated by the masters
of the cutlers and bladesmiths jointly. Agreed to by the Mayor.
_City of London Letter Books, 1, fol. lxxi._

1434. This is very similar to the Ordinances of the Hastings MS.
noticed in _Archæologia_, LVII. It is given here in full, as
it is the only literary effort of an armourer that is known in
England. _Treatise on Worship in Arms_, by Johan Hill, armourer
(Bod. Lib. Ash., 856) (see Appendix C).

1436. Proclamation forbidding the armourers to increase their
prices. _Fœdera_, Rymer, X, 647.

1509. Sir Nicholas Vaux, Lieutenant at Guisnes, orders all the
garrison to be English except gunners, crossbow-makers, spies,
beer-brewers, armourers, and smiths. _Cal. State Papers, Hen.
VIII, Vol. I._

1511. Payments made for a forge for Milanese armourers at
Greenwich.

1514. The armourers from Brussels are installed by Henry VIII at
Greenwich.

1515. Almain or German armourers mentioned as King’s servants.

1544. A complete account of the charges of the King’s Armoury,
with wages of the workmen. _Brit. Mus., Cott. App. XXVIII_, 75
(see Appendix F).

1556. Sir John Mason reports to the Council that he has obtained
50 fardels of plate for harness provided by the Schorers from
Augsburg. In _Considerations delivered to Parliament in 1559_
it is suggested “that iron mills be banished out of the realme,
where wood was formerly 1d. the load at the stalk now by reason
of the iron mills it is 2/- the load. Formerly Spanish iron was
sold for 5 marks the ton now there are iron mills English iron is
sold at 9/-.” This may be the key to the question of importation
of armour ready made. Evidently the use of wood in iron-smelting
presented a serious difficulty. As may be seen in the chapter on
Iron (p. 40), the use of wood in the furnaces was considered a
grave danger, as it took material which should have been used for
shipbuilding. The English forests were limited and had not the
vast acreage of the German woods, so that the deforestation was
merely a question of time.

1578. Inquiry as to a dispute between the armourers and
blacksmiths as to right of search for armour, etc. The judges
state that “the Armourers did show us that King Edward the Second
did grant to the Lord Maior and his bretheren the searche with
the armourers.” _Records Arm. Co., London._

1580. Sir Henry Lee made Master of the Armouries.

1590. Petition of the armourers of London to Queen Elizabeth
against the importation of foreign armour and workmen. _Lansdowne
MS._, 63, 5 (see Appendix G).

1611. Survey and inventory of all armour, etc., in the armouries
of the Tower, Greenwich, and Windsor in the late custody of Sir
Henry Lee, deceased, and now of Sir Thos. Monson, Master of the
Armoury. _State Papers Domestic, Jac. I, lxiv, June 8._

1614. Warrant to pay to Wm. Pickering, Master of the Armoury at
Greenwich, £200, balance of £340, for armour gilt and graven for
the late Prince. _Sign. Man., Vol. IV_, 29.

This suit, made for Henry, Prince of Wales, is now in the Royal
Collection at Windsor (see Plate XX).

1618. Undertaking of the Armourers’ Company to make certain
armours every six months and the prices of the same. _Records of
the Armourers’ Company of London_ (see Appendix H).

1619. Proclamation against the excessive use of gold and silver
foliate except for armour and ensigns of honour. _S.P.D. Jac. I,
cv, Feb., Proclamations_, 65 (see Appendix I).

1621. Gild of Armourers and Smiths incorporated at Shrewsbury by
James I. The “Arbor” of the Gild existed at Kingsland in 1862.
The Gild carried a figure of Vulcan dressed in black armour in
their processions. Their motto was “With hammer and hand all
hearts do stand.” The armour is in the Museum at Shrewsbury.
_Reliquary, Vol. III._

1624. Erection of plating-mills at Erith by Capt. John Martin.
_S.P.D. Jac. I, clxxx_, 71 (see Appendix J).

1625. Falkner asks for an inquiry as to the condition of the
Royal Armouries. _S.P.D. Car. I, xiii_, 96.

1627. Report of George, Earl of Totnes, on Falkner’s petition
advising John Cooper, Keeper of the King’s Brigandines, to
surrender his patent. _S.P.D. Car I, liv_, 1.

Cooper refuses to surrender unless his arrears of 16d. a day for
a year and a half are paid. _S.P.D. Car. I, lv_, 70.

1627. Petition of Falkner (Fawcknor) as to the condition of the
armouries. _S.P.D. Car. I, lxxxiv_, 5.

1628. Order to gun-makers, saddlers, and cutlers to bring
patterns of their wares. _S.P.D. Car. I, xcv_, March 10.

1628. Whetstone’s project to make armour lighter and as good as
proof. _S.P.D. Car. I, lxxxix_, 23. No details as to the process
are given in this entry.

1630. Inquiry into the work done in the State armouries of the
Tower, Greenwich, etc., with lists of the Remaines, moved by
Roger Falkenor. _S.P.D., clxxix_, 65. The whole of this document
is given in _Antient Armour_, Sir S. Meyrick, III, 78.

1631. Regulations respecting the use of a hall-mark by the
Armourers’ Company. _Rymer, XIX_, 309 (see Appendix K).

1635. Petition of the Workmen Armourers of London who are now old
and out of work. _S.P.D. Car. I, cclxxxix_, 93 (see Appendix L).

1636. Benjamin Stone, blade-maker, of Hounslow Heath, states
that he has, at his own charge of £6000, perfected the art of
blade-making, and that he can make “as good as any that are made
in the Christian world.” _S.P.D. Car. I, cccxli_, 132.

1660. A survey of the Tower Armoury and the Remaines contained
therein. This was taken after the Civil War and shows that much
of the working plant had been scattered. _Harl. MS._ 7457 (see
Appendix M).

1666. “Armour of the Toyras provision with headpeeces whereof
made in England to be worn with the said armes.” _Tower Inv. sub
ann._ Meyrick considers that this was made at Tours, but brings
no evidence to support his statement. It may have been part of
the equipment of the infantry under Marechal de Toiras, who
assisted Charles I against the Huguenots in La Rochelle in 1625.
Several breastplates in the Tower are stamped “Toiras.”

1666. Col. Wm. Legge appointed Master of the Armoury. Legge was
Governor of Chester in 1644, Governor of Oxford in 1645, was
offered and declined an earldom by Charles II, and died in 1672.
His eldest son was created Baron Dartmouth.

1685. An ordinance of James II that all edged tools, armour, and
all copper and brass made with the hammer in the city of London
should be approved by the Armourers’ Company. _Records of the
Company._

ALEGORIA DEL TACTO, BY JAN BRUEGHEL, CIRC. 1600

PRADO, MADRID]

There are no details relating to the lives of any of the known English armourers that are worth recording. Pickering, the pupil of Topf, was the most celebrated, and the record of his position of Master of the Armourers’ Company will be found under that heading. John Blewbery, whose name occurs in several entries in the Letters and Papers Foreign and Domestic, seems to have been merely the master-workman, and we have no evidence that he attained to a higher position. His name does not appear in the existing records of the Armourers’ Company. Asamus or Erasmus Kyrkenor first appears in a list of payments in 1518. He was employed to make candlesticks and for “garnishing books” with clasps, etc., in 1529, when presumably there was a slack time in the armouries. There are further entries of this nature in 1530, 1531, and 1532, in which year he “garnished” eighty-six books. In 1538 he was made Brigandarius to the King, vice John Gurre, deceased; but we find no details as to the duties of this office, which was continued to the reign of Charles I, when it became the subject of a complaint from Roger Falknor (Appendix J). In 1547 we find Erasmus in charge of the Greenwich Armoury, and in 1593 a note of the will of Wm. and Robt. Mighill states that they were the grandsons of Erasmus Kirkenor, deceased.

A list of English armourers is given on page 126.

FOOTNOTES:

[66] _The History of Inventions._ Beckman.

[67] See _Dover Castle Inventory_, p. 25. The “nailtoules” may have been used for this purpose.

[68] _Archæologia_, LXII.

[69] _Arch. Journ._, XXXVII.

[70] _Archæologia_, LIX.

[71] _Historia Anglicana_, Rolls Series, p. 457.

[72] _Arch. Journ._, LX.

[73] “Italian Armour at Chalcis,” C. ffoulkes, _Archæologia_, LXII.

[74] Cf. Baron de Cosson, _Arch. Journ._, XXXVII, p. 79.

[75] _Antient Armour_, II, 164.

[76] _Origines des Chevalivers, etc._, 1606, p. 142.

THE PROOF OF ARMOUR

As soon as the armed man realized that iron and steel were the best defences for his body, he would naturally insist that some sort of a guarantee should be given him of the efficacy of the goods supplied by his armourer. This system of proving armour would be effected by using those weapons most commonly in use, and these, in the early times, were the sword, the axe, the lance, the bow, and the crossbow. The latter seems to have been the more common form of proof, though as late as the seventeenth century we have evidence that armour was proved with the “estramaçon” or sword blow.[77]

In considering the proof of mail we are met with certain terms which are somewhat difficult of explanation, but which evidently are intended to convey the fact that the mail mentioned was of especially good quality. These terms are “haute cloueur,” “demi-cloueur,” “botte cassée,” and “botte.”

M. Charles Buttin,[78] in his studies on the arms used for proving armour, considers that “botte” is here used to denote a blow in the sense that it is used in fencing for a thrust or a lunge (It. botta). The word “cassée” he takes to be derived also from the Italian “casso,” vain or empty.

The term “haute” or “demi-cloueurs” seems rather to suggest the single or double riveting of each link of mail. Ordinary mail is either welded or joined with one rivet, but in some cases, as in III, 339, Tower, two rivets are used to obtain increased strength for the fabric (see also page 44).

Mail seems to have been proof against arrows at a very early period, for we find in the _Chronicon Colmariense_, under the year 1398, the statement that the men-at-arms wore “camisiam ferream, ex circulis ferreis contextam, per quae nulla sagitta arcus poterat hominem vulnerare.” The earliest entry of this mail of proof is found in the Inventory of Louis X (le Hutin) of France, which is here given together with other entries of the different expressions used with regard to proof of this nature.

1316. _Inventory of Louis le Hutin. Bib. Richel., MS. fr._, 7855.

Item uns pans[79] et uns bras de roondes mailles de haute cloueur.

Uns de meme d’acier plus fors.

Item uns couverture a cheval ... de jaseran de fer, uns de mailes
rondes demy clouées.

In this entry there is evidently a variety of mail which is even stronger than that of “haute cloueur,” but this may possibly be of stouter or better-tempered metal. The horse-armour would not need to be of such high proof as that of the man, because from its form it would be more or less in folds when the horse was in action and would therefore present double thicknesses to the weapon. An illustration of the mail-clad horse is given in the present writer’s _Armour and Weapons_, and also in _Monumenta Vetusta_, Vol. VI.

1390. _Archives Camerales de Turin Comptes Tres. gen. de Savoie,
No. 38, fol. 62v._

Achettez de Simond Brufaler armeur, de mons ... per le pris de un
auberjon d’acier de toute botte.

This expression “de toute botte” suggests that the armour was proof against all blows, that is from the sword, the axe--the “estramaçon” above alluded to--and also against the bow and the crossbow. In 1612 Sturtevant in his _Metallica_ writes on page 62 that the ironworker should “make things stronger than the Exact strength which the thing is to have,” and we find this borne out in an extract from the Armerie di Roma, Arch. Stat. c. 150, of the date 1627, which mentions old armour “a botta” which had been proved with “due e tre colpi dell’ arma alla quale dovevano resistere.”[80]

The proof by the crossbow is mentioned by Angellucci in a note, quoting from the _Arch. Gonz. Copialett._, T. II, c. 65: “et si te manderemo doi veretoni di nostri saldi, como i quali tu farai aprovare la ditta coraza corno uno bono balestro di cidello.”[80] The last-mentioned weapon is the “arbalest à tour” or windlass crossbow. It would seem from M. Buttin’s researches that the armour “à toute épreuve” was proved by crossbow and sword, and that “à demi épreuve” by the smaller lever crossbow or by the javelin thrown by hand. These varieties of proof were indicated by the marks stamped upon them, one mark for the single and two for the double (see page 65). In some documents we have definite entries of arrows used for proof, which would naturally have exceptionally well-tempered points:--

1378. _Reg. de la Cloison d’Angers, No. 6._

Pour deux milliers de fer pour viretons partie d’espreuve et
autre partie de fer commun.

The “vireton” was a crossbow-bolt which had spiral wings of metal or wood so fitted that it revolved in its course.

1416. _Compt de Gilet Baudry, Arch. Mun. Orleans._

Flêches à arc empannées a cire et ferres de fers d’espreuve.

Here the “feathering” of the arrow with copper is specified, for it was this metal wing which, acting like the propeller of a boat, caused the arrow to revolve with increased velocity.

These arrows of proof cost double the price of ordinary arrows, for we have entries of such projectiles in the year 1419 costing 8s. the dozen, while the ordinary quality cost but 4s. the dozen.[81]

Details of the regulations of setting proof marks upon armour will be found in Appendices B, E, K.

The proving of brigandines was most carefully carried out, for in some instances every separate plate was stamped with the proof mark. In the Paris Collection double proof marks are found on the brigandine G, 206, and a similar double mark appears stamped on the Missaglia suit G, 3, but of a different design. The helmet of Henry VIII on II, 29 (Tower) also bears the double proof mark of one of the Missaglia family (Plate X). It would be tedious and unnecessary to give a list of those armours which bear these proof marks, for they are to be found in every armoury of note in Europe; but it will be of some profit to quote various extracts showing the reason and the effects of proofs or trials of armour.

1. VENETIAN SALLAD COVERED WITH VELVET, XVI CENT.
2. BACK PLATE OF BRIGANDINE COVERED WITH FABRIC, 1470
3. MORION WITH COVER, XVI-XVII CENT.
4. SURCOAT OF THE BLACK PRINCE]

In the sixteenth century the firearm had become a serious factor in warfare, therefore the proof was decided by submitting the armour to pistol or musket shot.

1347. _Regulations of the Heaumers of London_ (original in
Norman-French), _City of London Letter Book, F, fol. cxlii_.

Also that helmetry and other arms forged by the hammer ... shall
not from henceforth in any way be offered for sale privily or
openly until they have been properly assayed by the aforesaid
Wardens and marked with their marks (see Appendix B).

1448. _Statutes des Armuriers Fourbisseurs d’Angers._

It. les quels maisters desd. mestiers seront tenus besoigner
et faire ouvrage et bonnes étoffes, c’est assavoir pour tant
que touche les armuriers, ils feront harnois blancs pour hommes
d’armes, de toute épreuve qui est à dire d’arbalestes à tilloles
et à coursel à tout le moins demie espreuve ... marquées de
2 marques ... et d’espreuve d’arbaleste à crocq et traict
d’archier, marquées d’une marque (see Appendix E).

The “arbaleste à tilloles” was the large bow bent with a windlass, the “arbaleste à crocq” was smaller and was bent with a hook fastened to the waist of the archer (see Payne Gallwey, _The Crossbow_).

1537. _Discipline Militaire_, Langey, I, chap, xxii, pp. 79, 80.

... les Harnois soient trop foibles pour résister à l’Artillerie
ou à l’Escopeterie, néantmoins ils défendent la personne des
coups de Pique de Hallebarde, d’Epée, du Trait, des Pierres, des
Arbalestes, et des Arcs.... Et par fois une Harquebuze sera si
mal chargée ou si fort eschauffée ou pourra tirer de si loin, que
le Harnois pour peu qu’il soit bon sauvera la vie d’un homme.

The above writer considers, and with reason, that when the uncertainty of firearms was taken into consideration defensive armour was of much practical use; and this theory was held as late as the eighteenth century, for Marshal Saxe in his _Les Rêveries_[82] warmly recommends the use of defensive armour, especially for cavalry, as he considers that a large proportion of wounds were caused by sword, lance, or spent bullets. It was evidently from reasons such as the above that a reliable proof by pistol or musket shot was insisted upon, for the armour of the Duc de Guise in the Musée d’Artillerie (G, 80) is of great thickness and weighs 42 kilos. It has either been tested by the maker or has seen service, for there are three bullet marks on the breastplate, neither of which has penetrated.[83]

1569. _Arch. cur. de Nantes_, I, col. 305.

612 corps de cuyrace ... garnis de haulzecou ... desquelz le
devant sera a l’espreuve d’arquebuse et le derrière de pistol.

The terms “high proof,” “caliver proof,” and “musket proof” often occur in writings of this period and onwards up to the time when armour was discarded; but it is difficult to get any definite information as to how the proof was made. In the above entry there are two kinds of proof, which show that the back-plate was thinner than the breastplate, the resisting power being obtained not only by temper of metal, but also by its thickness.

1568. _Les Armuriers français et étrangers_, Giraud, pp. 191, 192.

Ung corps de cuirasse lequel sera a l’espreuve de la pistolle,
ung habillement de teste a l’esprouve de la pistolle, brassartz
... a l’esprove de la pistolle, tassettes courtes a l’esprouve de
la pistolle.

Here is evidently a necessary definition of each piece. Probably on some former occasion the armourer had classed the whole suit as of proof when such a description might only be honestly given to the cuirass. Accounts of actual trials are rare, but the following extract is of interest as showing the methods employed in England. It is given in full, with many valuable extracts bearing on the craft of the armourer, by Viscount Dillon, in _Archæologia_, Vol. LI. The extract is taken from a letter from Sir Henry Lee, Master of the Armoury in 1580, to Lord Burghley, and bears the date Oct. 12, 1590.

The first part of the letter states that a gentleman of Shropshire was anxious that the metal mined in his county should be used for armour instead of the German iron which at this time was considered to be the best in the market. Sir Henry writes: “To give the more credyte to that stuffe to the armourers of London and to Jacobi the Mr. workman of Grenewhyche, the Counsell apoynt in there presence that Sr. Robarte Constable and my cossyn John Lee shoulde see a proofe made wh. by tryall proved most usefull.” The “Shropshire gentleman” sent Sir Henry “a new brest beyng sent owt of the country of gret litenes and strengthe as he was made beleve,” and entrusted him to “cause another of the very same wayght to be made in her Matys office of Greenwhyche, wh. I presently performed.” Pistols were then loaded with equal charges and fired at the two breastplates, with the result that “that made in the Offyce and of the metall of Houngere[84] helde out and more than a littel dent of the pellet nothinge perced, the other clene shotte thereowe and much tare the overpart of a beme the brest studde upon as longe as my fyngeers. Thus muche for the Ynglyshe metall.”

From time to time, as has been noticed before, there had been efforts to wrest the monopoly of the supply of metal for armour from the foreigner, but here was a very tangible proof of the superiority of the alien material. It is true that the Shropshire breastplate appears to have been sent from that county for the test, while the foreign metal was made up by the highly skilled workmen in the Royal Armoury at Greenwich under the eye of Jacobi (Topf), a master-craftsman who can have had but few rivals at that time. Possibly he may have possessed some secrets of tempering and hardening his metal which were unknown to less experienced smiths, and so have obtained the award of superiority for the metal of his own country. Topf had migrated to England from Innsbruck and must certainly have had friends among the iron-merchants of that locality. So his interests were obviously on the side of the foreign metal.

It may be only romance or it may be fact, but certainly Oliver de la Marche,[85] writing about the year 1450, describes some such process of tempering armour after it was made. “Boniface avoit trempe son harnois d’une eau qui le tenoit si bon que fer ne povoit prendre sus.” It is not to be suggested that it was a special kind of water that was used for this, but rather that it was some method of heating and cooling the metal which was employed. Angellucci, in the _Catalogue of the Armeria Reale, Turin_ (p. 129), quotes, from documents of the sixteenth century, the account of a breastplate made by Colombo, an armourer of Brescia, being spoiled because he had used excessive charges for his pistol or musket.

1602. _Milice français_, Montgomery, Pt. II, p. 187.

Les chevau-légers estoient armez d’armes complètes d’une cuirasse
à l’épreuve. Le reste estoit à la légère.

The last detail shows that the back-pieces were much lighter than the proof breastplates, and this is borne out by other similar entries during the century. Evidently the efficacy of the musket had increased in the first years of the seventeenth century and with it the weight of the proved armour. In later entries we find that pistol proof is of more frequent occurrence, and from this we may gather that the weight of metal was a serious hindrance to the soldier and that he preferred the risk of a bullet.

Still there are cases to be found of complete proof, for in 1605 even the brayette was of proof (_Arch. Gov. Brescia Privil., R. 7, V_, p. 10),[86] and if this small, in fact the smallest, portion of the armour was proved, we may be sure that the whole suit was tested equally.

In 1628-9 we learn from the State Papers Domestic, lxxxix, 23, that one Whetstone had a project for making light armour as good as proof, but there are no details of his methods. It is quite probable, in most cases, that when one piece of the armour was proved the rest were made of similar material and tempered in the same way, and that actual proof was not expected or given. An interesting extract from the _Memorials of the Verney Family_, IV, 30, gives us some information as regards the proof of armour:--

1667, Feb. Richard Hals is choosing some armour for his cousin in
London: he has tested it with as much powder as will cover the
bullet in the palme of his hand.

This rough-and-ready method of estimating the charge is borne out in Gaya’s _Traité des Armes_, p. 30 (Reprint 1911, Clarendon Press).

The Verney extract goes on to say that Verney wished to have the armour tested again, but the armourer refused, for by this time it was finished, and he said that “it is not the custom of workmen to try their armour after it is faced and filed.”

CAST OF IVORY CHESSMAN, XIV CENT.

IVORY MIRROR CASE, XIV CENT.]

This suit cost £14 2s. 8d., and when it was delivered Verney was by no means pleased, as it did not fit.[87] A clear proof that armour was tested before it was finished is to be found on the suit made by Garbagnus of Brescia for Louis XIV of France, now in the Musée d’Artillerie (G, 125). M. Buttin[88] in noticing this suit describes it as “La magnifique armure offerte à Louis XLV par la République de Venise,” but in this we must certainly hold a different opinion, for the production, although elaborately engraved, is perhaps the best example of the decadence of the craft of the armourer, so graceless and clumsy are its lines and proportions. The proof mark is upon the left of the breastplate, at the point where the lower edge of the pauldron ends. It has been made the centre of a double-petalled rose, showing plainly that the bullet mark was there before the engraver began his work. A similar mark at the back is made the centre of a flower (Fig. 35). The document relating to the “proof mark” of the Armourers’ Company of London will be found in Appendix K.

Gaya in his _Traité des Armes_, 1678, referred to above, states on page 53 that the casque and front of the cuirass should be of musket proof, but the other parts need only be of pistol or carbine proof. In speaking of head-pieces he states, on the same page, that the heavier kinds were proved with musket-shot, but the light varieties were only tested with “estramaçon” or sword-cut; and he adds that for armour to be good it must be beaten and worked cold and not hot.

We have seen how armour was proved and how the proof mark of crossbow-bolt or bullet is often found as a witness to the fact. In addition to this we frequently find the mark or poinçon of the armourer, which invariably means that the piece is of good workmanship and worthy of notice.

Like all the other craft gilds, that of the armourer was very jealous of the reputation of its members. The tapestry weavers of Flanders were obliged to mark, in some cases, every yard of their production; and so in fine suits of armour we find many of the individual pieces that go to make up the suit stamped with the maker’s mark and also with the stamp of the town. These town stamps are mostly found in German work from Nuremberg, Augsburg, etc. We find the name Arbois used on some Burgundian armour, but never are the names of Italian or French towns stamped. With the sword this rule does not hold good, for the Spanish, Italian, and German makers frequently used the town of origin as a mark in addition to their own. Toledo, Passau, Ferara, Solingen are all found upon swords, and are very often stamped upon blades of an entirely different nationality. This forgery of the stamp may have been perpetrated with the intent to defraud, or it may simply have been used as a mark of excellence, like “Paris fashions” or “Sheffield steel” at the present day. The forgery of marks on suits of armour is very seldom met with and where it exists it is obviously done for ulterior reasons.

The stamps take the form of signs such as the trefoil of Treytz, the monogram such as the “M Y” of the Missaglias, and the crowned “A” of the Armourers’ Company of London; the rebus, as for example the helm used by the Colman (Helmschmied) family, or a combination of two or more of the above variety.

About the year 1390 we have the following entry:--

Achetiez de Symond Brufaler armeur ... 1 auberion d’acier de
botte cassé duquel toutes les mailes sunt seignier du seignet du
maistre.[89]

This shows that in some cases every link of mail was stamped with the armourer’s mark. In Oriental mail letters and sometimes words from the Koran are stamped on each link, but we have no examples extant of European mail stamped with the maker’s mark on each link.

On May 11, 1513, Richard Thyrkyll writes to Henry VIII from Antwerp saying that he can find no “harness of the fleur de lys” in any part of Brabant (Brit. Mus. Galba, B, III, 85).

This probably refers to a trade-mark or poinçon well known as denoting metal of high temper. A brigandine in the Museum at Darmstadt bears this mark repeated twice on each plate, showing that it was proof against the large crossbow (Fig. 36). Demmin (_Guide des Amateurs d’Armes_) gives a mark of a lion rampant as stamped on the plates of a brigandine in his collection, and an example in the Musée d’Artillerie has the Nuremberg mark on each of the plates.

In the case of mail a small label is sometimes found, riveted on to the fabric, on which is the maker’s stamp; an example of this is the eagle which is stamped on a label attached to the mail skirt G, 86, in the Armeria Reale, Turin (see Table of Marks, 59). In brigandines we sometimes find each of the small plates stamped with the maker’s mark, which is held to be evidence of “proof.”

As we have seen from the entry under the date 1448, on page 65, the single stamp signified proof against the small crossbow and the double stamp proof against the heavy windlass-bow.

As has been noticed above, the forgery or imitation of marks is more common on sword-blades than on defensive armour, and of these the wolf, dog, or fox of Passau is most frequently imitated. In some instances the representation is more or less life-like, but in others there is simply a crude arrangement of straight lines that suggest the head, legs, body, and tail of the animal.

Stamping of armour was practised early in the middle of the fourteenth century, as will be seen in the Regulations of the Company of Heaumers transcribed in Appendix B.

In Rymer’s _Fœdera_ (XIX, p. 312) we find accounts for repairing and remodelling armour in the year 1631, and at the end of the list comes the entry “For stamping every harness fit to be allowed £ 0 0 0”, which shows that even armour that was remade from old material was subjected to tests, and also that these tests were recorded by a gratuitous stamp of the craftsman or of the company to which he belonged.

The only entry extant which actually refers to the making of these stamps for armourers is given in the _Mem. de la Soc. Arch. de Touraine, T. XX, pp. 268-9_ (_Arch. de Tours, Grandmaison_).

1470. A Pierre Lambert orfèvre, la somme de 55 s. t. ... pour
avoir fait et gravé 6 poinsons de fer acérez pour marquer les
harnois blancs et brigandines qui seroient faiz et délivrez en
lad. ville, de la façon que le roy l’avait ordonné, et pour
avoir retaillé et ressué 2 desd. poinsons qui estoient fenduz en
marquant les harnois.

A Jehan Harane orfèvre, pour avoir gravé les armes de la ville en
2 poinsons de fer pour marquer les harnois et brigandines vendues
en lad. ville 30 s.

The number of armourers’ marks known at present amounts to several hundred, but of the majority nothing is known as to ownership and history. A few of the principal marks in English and Continental collections are given on page 148.

FOOTNOTES:

[77] Gaya, _op. cit._

[78] _Revue Savoisienne_, 1906, fasc. 4.

[79] Panzer, body-armour.

[80] _Cat. Armeria Reale Turin_, 129.

[81] _Rev. Savoisienne_, 1906, fasc. 4, p. 3.

[82] Edit. 1756, p. 58.

[83] A half-suit in the possession of H. Moffat, Esq., Goodrich Court, formerly the property of New College, Oxford, has a heavy “plastron” or reinforcing piece. The bullet has dented this and also the cuirass underneath. The head-piece and back-plate are pierced by bullets.

[84] Hungarian or Innsbruck iron.

[85] _Memories_, I, xxi (edit. 1884).

[86] _Cat. Armeria Reale Turin_, p. 73 note.

[87] See page 105.

[88] _Rev. Savoisienne_, 1901, fasc. 2 and 3.

[89] Arch. Cam. de Turin, Compte des Très. gén. de Savoie, Vol. XXXIX, f. 163.

THE DECORATION OF ARMOUR

From the earliest times defensive armour has been more or less decorated and ornamented with more or less elaborate detail as the armourer became skilled in his craft and as the patron indulged in vanity or caprice. Perhaps the most astonishing work in this direction is the shoulder-piece of a cuirass known as the Siris bronze in the British Museum, which is of such elaborate repoussé work that it is difficult to see how the tool can have been used from the back. It is not, however, the intention of this work to deal with Greek or Roman armour, or indeed with armour previous to the eleventh century; otherwise its limits would have to be considerably enlarged. The ornamentation of early armour, the employment of brass or latten rings, which formed patterns on the hauberk, called for no special skill on the part of the craftsman, and it is only when we come to the thirteenth century that we find traces of actual decoration on the pieces of plate which composed the suit.

PORTRAITS BY MORONI

NATIONAL GALLERY, LONDON]

And here it should be remembered that the axiom of suitability was, in later years, forgotten, and the ever-important “glancing surface” was destroyed by designs in high relief, which not only retained the full shock of the opposing weapon, but also hindered the free movement of the several plates one over the other. The word “decoration” in itself suggests a “decorous” or suitable adornment, and this suitability was not always considered by the sixteenth and seventeenth century armourers.

The use of jewels was always favoured among the nobility, and we find in the inventory of the effects of Piers Gaveston[90] plates ornamented with gold and silver and ailettes “frettez de perles.” In 1352 King John of France and the Dauphin had elaborate head-pieces ornamented with jewels, and in 1385 the King of Castile wore a helmet at the battle of Aljubertota which was enriched with gold and valued at 20,000 francs.[91]

The well-known brass of Sir John d’Aubernon, 1277, shows the first traces of the actual ornamentation of armour, which culminated in the work of Piccinino and Peffenhauser in the sixteenth century. Similar ornamentation is found on the brass of Sir Robert de Bures, 1302 (Fig. 37). It is possible that the poleynes shown on this brass and also the beinbergs on the figure of Guigliemo Berardi in the Cloisters of the Annunziata at Florence (Fig. 38) were made of cuir-bouilli and not metal, for there is not much incised or engraved iron found in domestic objects of this period (Fig. 37). But when we reach the end of the century we find a richly decorated suit of complete plate shown on the brass of an unknown knight of about the year 1400 which in no way suggests any material but iron or steel (Fig. 39).